On 9/24/11 12:14 PM, Kim Alvefur wrote: > I think it would be better to say "this room has moved". There is > mention of something like this in the section on destroying rooms[1], > but it's not mentioned how you should inform someone joining after the > room has been destroyed about the new location. > > Current implementations (AFAIK) forget about the old room being > destroyed and let anyone create, and become owner of, a room named the > same as the old room. I can imagine this not being optimal sometimes, > possibly even a security issue. > > How about some clarification, like saying you should send the > same /presence@type=unavailable/x/destroyed stanza as when the room is > destroyed. And maybe we should discourage implementations from letting > anyone recreate the room for a while? > > [1]: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#destroyroom
I think the MUC service would return a <gone/> stanza error: http://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#stanzas-error-conditions-gone Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
